Does the Trust Exist? Did it Ever Exist?
Posted on September 24, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Based upon the latest info coming into us I have no doubt that in most cases there was no trust and that no court would find that there was a trust. There is no trustor, beneficiary, funding, assets, bank accounts or even the appearance of being managed by the trust departments of banks whose trust departments fill multiple floors of their buildings. The trust was an excellent sham (even I fell for it for a long while) when in fact, nobody was moving the money through or even with reference to the trust or its “holders.”
I would challenge whether ASBC 1234-1 exists and therefore whether there could be holders. Despite your previous statutory requests for information there is no trail of MONEY in which the loan was originated with the ASBC name attached to it and no assignment where money was transferred. On the contrary, it appears as though they are claiming ownership by a trustee that was never funded and may never have actually been created where, for example, US Bank is a self appointed “trustee” with no duties, powers or obligations. Note that US Bank like Deutsch Bank does not administer this trust through its “trust department” indicating that there was nothing to exercise control over.
Also the PSA and the note do not state the same repayment terms. Hence, the basic ingredients of a written contract — offer, acceptance of the offer and consideration are all absent. That means there is a common law duty to repay, the terms of which might be that it is a demand loan, meaning the total is due now, but it is not secured by a mortgage — particularly in this case where you didn’t sign the mortgage.
The point needs to be made that the investors are suing US Bank in dozens of cases stating the same thing. That they have no way to enforce notes and mortgages with fatal defects, where the notes do not properly recite the terms of the actual money transaction, name the wrong payee, lender and beneficiary. The fact that the investors refuse to attempt to enforce what they contend, as we contend, instruments that are fatally defective is NOT a license for a stranger to the transaction to claim collection or mortgage enforcement rights.
The chain of participants in this sham securitization have failed to show a nexus between the money and the documents. Instead they have papered over the fatal defects with more defective, fabricated and forged documents. This in fact worked initially as the debtor was unaware of the reality of the transaction in which her name was being used by these chain participants in order to trade, sell and hedge the loan that they had neither funded nor purchased.
If they received money on these trades or sales, then they did so without accounting to this court or the investors as to their receipt, which would decrease the amount due to the creditor and hence decrease the amount due from the borrower — albeit with the possibility that that payors might have a common law contribution claim against the debtor that is also unsecured.
But these parties — AIG, AMBAC as insurers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other counter-parties to credit default swaps, insurance, and federal purchase bailouts are suing the investment bank who received this money under false pretenses and failed to apply it against the loan balance.
Like the investor-lenders, they have concluded that they were defrauded by false origination claims, with fatally defective underwriting and fatally defective instruments, exacerbated in this case that the debtor never signed the deed of trust. finding that the debtor had not signed the deed of trust and that the deal was not yet complete, they intentionally forged a signature badly in a way that was easily perceived by the debtor and easily corroborated by the handwriting expert.
Like the investor-lenders they allege that there is no way for them to collect on this fake chain of documents from anyone other than the investment bank that sold them on the idea that the investment bank was the owner of the mortgage bonds and hence was the owner of fractional shares of the loans, when nothing could have been further from the truth. These cases are being settled with hundreds of millions of dollars in each suit corroborating the fact that the investment bank received money under false pretenses and failed to account for the money properly, to wit: that the loans might well have been paid in whole or in part but not reflected on any statements sent to the investor-lenders.
My information, especially where US bank is concerned is that there is no bank account, brokerage account or any other account held by “U.S. Bank as Trustee for ASBC” You are basically saying that they filed for the wrong creditors because they didn’t due their due diligence. Either another pool is the proper claimant or no pool is the claimant, in which case it would be up to the Master Service to provide a nexus between individual investor-lenders and this loan. They can’t do it because the funds were commingled in a single account with the “holders” of other pools who were similarly fooled. These investors thought they were getting a mortgage bond issued by a pool that owned loans or would have acquired them before the cutoff date and if acquired would have done so with the required signatures, delivery, payment, and assignment recordable and recorded in the county records.